Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda/Archive

09 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Account's only edits are to !vote "keep" on two related AfDs, with a precocious knowledge of wikipedia markup &c. The tone of the comments (ie. complaining about discrimination, accusing me of being ignorant &c) is similar to that of Abhidevananda, the only other editor to !vote "keep". bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my first thought was User:Cornelius383 - the creator of the articles - but they seem to have a slightly different editing pattern. bobrayner (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This could be meatpuppetry. Both and  appear to be closely linked to the organization (see this and this). Another editor here has expressed concerns that the editors could possibly indulge in off-wiki activity. In any case, I have tagged the account as SPA in both the AfDs, will wait for CU comments.  Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  12:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. However, regardless of whether the new account is an offsite meatpuppet or a sleeper sock, if Cornelius383 were going to use that ploy, it would seem strange for them to canvass Abhidevananda first. So, I think it more likely that DezDeMonaaa is connected to Abhidevananda, which would fit the editing style. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this new edit may seal the deal: Whilst making the debate personal, Abhidevananda repeatedly misspells my name, as "raynor", exactly the same misspelling that DezDeMonaaa did in their first edit, which used the same personalising tactic. Making the same typo suggests sock rather than meatpuppet. However, considering that the DezDeMonaaa account was created in advance, I think Checkuser may still be helpful (there may even be another sleeper sock out there, who knows). bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, sleepers should be checked for. Apologies for not noticing that account was created on 6 November 2012 and not 9 Jan 2013 when the first edit was made. That increases the likelihood of sockpuppetry. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  19:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Checked per the spelling overlap diffs as a sock possibly used for votestacking. The two accounts are technically ❌, and geographically speaking, it looks to be the same individual behind them. WilliamH (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; thanks for your time. Would it be appropriate to treat this as meatpuppetry, then, or not? bobrayner (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it is very difficult to tie these two together as meatpuppetry with only two edits from Dez*. They might know each other, have similar interests, or Abhide* may just being defensive for someone who shares his perspective.  Closing with no prejudice to consider these edits later on if more evidence surfaces that they are working in concert.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

24 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Several very new users are finding their way to Sarkar-related AfDs and casting keep !votes. Abhidevananda is the only most active established user also !voting keep on all of these.
 * User:Anta An, 22 total edits, 11 keep !votes:, , , , , , , , , ,
 * User:DezDeMonaaa, 36 total edits, 5 keep !votes:, , , ,
 * User:Knight of Infinity 33 total edits, 4 keep !votes:, , ,
 * User:Soroboro, 36 total edits, 3 keep !votes:, ,
 * User: Goldenaster, 11 total edits, 2 keep !votes:    (added after CU)

Thanks. Garamond Lethe t c  03:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The best diff I have tying the meatpuppets to Abhidevananda is. There are several ways to read the words "intervention", of course, and I'll let the closing admin decide which reading is most appropriate given the rest of the circumstances. Garamond Lethe t c  20:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a continuing problem: User:‎Cornelius383 canvassed Abhidevananda, Goldenaster, Anta An, Soroboro, Knight of Infinity, and DezDeMonaaa to comment at another Sarkar-related article:
 * I've noted your recent participation in the AfD's talks related with the philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, perhaps you could also be interested in this discussion on the article Ananda Marga. Thanks

No editors who disagreed with Cornelius383 at the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar AfDs received a similar invitation. Garamond Lethe t c  06:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, what does this have to do with a sock puppet investigation on this user Abhidevananda? It seems as if this sock puppet investigation page is simply a place for the rude Mr. Lethe to sling mud as he wishes. As for canvassing on the Ananda Marga page, there were four users already involved with the discussion who have obviously been anti-Sarkarverse on other Sarkar related articles, and are continuing to be so on that page. So who canvassed Bob Raynor, Correct Knowledge, Mangoe, and of course, Mr. Garamond Lethe? It would seems silly for Cornelius to ask them to join a discussion page on which they were all already involved in. Cornelius simply asked in a neutral fashion to have a look at a page where he is being bullied by those four editors. --DezDeMonaaa (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's simply another example of vote-stacking in order to get the desired content changes. Various methods have been tried: Creating sockpuppets, canvassing, editwarring, badgering admins, and so on. Sockpuppets like DezDeMonaaa are part of a broader problem. bobrayner (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary of evidence
1. Several new editors have found their way to Sarkar-related AfD discussions, and all have uniformly !voted "keep".  This pattern looks like off-wiki canvassing, but there's probably no way to find out who recruited whom. Some of the editors have gone on to make useful contributions in other topics. Recommendation: an informal topic ban on Sarkar-related articles and discussions for these five editors, perhaps until they get 1k edits under their belts. For these editors I don't think anything more will be needed than a note on their talk pages explaining WP:CANVASS and asking them to not give the appearance of impropriety.

2. User:Cornelius383 has canvassed these editors on-wiki.   Links are given above. His response has been IDHT. He has had canvassing explained to him before. Recommendation: User:Cornelius383 stopped edit-warring after being blocked briefly, and I expect he will stop canvassing after being blocked as well. I don't see any reason to extend the block beyond the time it takes him to satisfy an uninvolved admin that he understands WP:CANVASS and guarantees this behavior won't happen again.

3. Abhidevananda does not appear to be involved in canvassing.  Between the CU report and User:Cornelius383 on-wiki canvassing while this SPI was ongoing, I now think it's far more likely that Cornelius383 was responsible for the off-wiki canvassing. I offer my apologies for any distress or inconvenience I've caused to Abhidevananda. Garamond Lethe t c  19:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How is all of this in any way related to Native Foreigner's instruction to keep additional information related to socks? As well, Garamond Lethe's recommendation to ban editors from WP who disagree with him goes against the spirit of WP:SPA. As Garamond has added all of this information, it of course prompted Cornelius to expose the block voting coming in from fringe theories (despite the fact that 99% of the material is unrelated to fringe theories). If the suggestion is made that these editors should be banned, then correspondingly the 9 editors from the fringe theories noticeboard plus IRWolfie should also be be given the same treatment - all of who seem to view this specific topic through a lens that is no less partisan than those they are accusing. --DezDeMonaaa (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Note: Keep issues sock related. It does not look like there will be strong technical evidence, so line as much as you can up for us in terms of contributions. If the discussion continues to stray I won't hesitate to close. NativeForeigner Talk 12:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner, thanks for taking a second look. I'll be collating the evidence we have and should have a summary for you in the next 24 hours or so.  Garamond Lethe t c  18:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is my first SPI, so if you'd like the evidence above put into a format that's easier to deal with, let me know what that format is and I'll see what I can do. Garamond Lethe t c  19:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)q


 * I have concerns that some of these accounts may actually be connected to Cornelius383 or Universal Life, rather than Abhidevananda. Here's a table listing everybody who !voted "keep" more than once on the affected AfDs. Anta An, Goldenaster, Soroboro, DezDeMonaaa, and Knight of Infinity are SPAs; Abhidevananda, Cornelius383, and Universal Life are established editors. Cornelius383 created all the articles. Looking at the table, I see that Goldenaster, Soroboro, and Knight of Infinity have only !voted on the AfDs where Cornelius383 has taken part - and, like Cornelius383, they're fond of "Strong keep". I think Abhidevananda is behind the Anta An account. The ownership of the DezDeMonaaa account is not clear to me at this point; earlier editing showed some coincidences with Abhidevananda (ie. shared typos) but the previous checkuser result was negative. This table just considers !votes, I haven't looked at editing times or wording. bobrayner (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As an editor who has become involved in these Afds, I associate Abhidevananda's with WP:BLUDGEON. These other accounts lead me to suspect to Cornelius383. Location (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions. I expressed, however my strong complaints in some of the AfD's proposed by them. They published above a table on "Keeps" but I suggest below another interesting table on "Deletions and AfDs" (made/launched by those users). I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints:
 * Strong complaints:As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I can say I was literally haunted by users user:bobrayner, User:Garamond Lethe and Co and I strongly doubt their good faith.

Total ranking on 21 articles I emphasize that the activity of some of these users seems strongly focused in trying, with persistence, to remove everything that is connected with the Indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page containing all the links related with this author. We have clear evidence of the follow-up in the revision history here of the page and from some of their thalks. Are these behaviors adhering to the rules of WP?--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Somebody is using sockpuppets to vote "Keep" on AfDs of all the articles you wrote. Who do you think is doing this? bobrayner (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For me you could be too! Who wrote all the "Delete" and then AfD's on all items listed in the table above?--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All this seems pointy to me. All of the users you are referring to have been around for awhile, have participated in many, many Afds previously, and have extensive editing histories outside of Afds or the Sarkar-related articles. Given that many of the above are regulars on WP:FTN, I suspect that is how most of us were drawn into this. -Location (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but since when does Bob Raynor get to ignore the findings of admins? Any individual can clearly read below the words "Inconclusive" and "Unrelated"! It seems not only is Bob Raynor continuing to beat a dead horse, but he is also being canvassed by Garamond Lethe as to when and how to post these investigations onto the AFD's of two Sarkar related articles; Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies, and Yoga Psychology. Furthermore, Location defends himself as just us old regulars hanging out at WP:FTN. While all the while, Mangoe has a hit list of Sarkar related articles and Garamond Lethe is his chief hit man (meat puppet?). Regardless of any edit histories, the behavior of those editors listed by Cornelius 383 is uncivil and disruptive. Furthermore, the classification of all of Sarkar's writings as fringe theory is the type of stereotyping that merely reflects prejudice. With over 20 million yoga practitioners in the US alone, 'Yogic Treatments', and 'Yoga Psychology' are hardly considered to be in the fringe theory category. Looking at a few of the other titles, 'Neohumanism' is expanded humanism, 'AM Caryacarya' is simply the social code for a religious movement, 'Problems of the Day' discusses capitalism, 'Prabhat Samgiita' is an extensive collection of music, 'Discourses on Tantra' are referencing an ancient philosophy, all of which hardly belong in the fringe theory category. Whether or not these people all know each other from the fringe theory noticeboard, they have gone well beyond the boundaries of the function of a noticeboard which is why they coordinate their activities on a user page of Mangoe. --DezDeMonaaa (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The question is does protocol only apply to some editors and not to others. Looking at the history, I can see Garamond Lethe has been busy editing the comments by other users section to the tune of 5 edits in addition to the previous 10 edits in his original complaint section. Garamond Lethe has even tried to hide comments by other users that he didn't like and modified those he did. Who is he to be making unsigned edits on tables created by other users in a section where he is seemingly not supposed to be talking? --DezDeMonaaa (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: the second table above is only an example, we can build more complete ones using other points of view on a scientific way. The impression is that there is a group of users who are carrying out a largely destructive activity against a topic on WP. To achieve this goal they are strictly following this agenda. In addition their editing history is full of disruptive interventions (AfDs, deletions and unconstructive "cleansings" etc.) that practically impede the editing work on many WP articles. If some of them are sockpuppets I don't know. But the suspicion is strong.--Cornelius383 (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "agenda" is (as is stated) simply a list of all the articles related to Sarkar, including references from the outside. Nobody is suggesting that they all be deleted; the problem we at FT/N find is that this material is being handled in a promotional fashion by editors whom we have to suspect are among Sarkar's followers, and there is every reason to include Cornelius383 in that suspicion. We're going over these articles in an attempt to rein in the promotion. I'm perfectly willing to stop this at the point where we find people outside the movement supplying the information; the problem, over and over again, is that except for the most central articles in the group (those on Sarkar, PROUT, Ananda Marga, and a couple of major figures) we are not finding those sources. The three or so main people defending these articles flatly refuse to acknowledge that this is a problem, and it's impossible to ignore the parade of SPAs who come along only to vote against these AFDs. I personally would like to see better articles on the central topics, but the flood of insider editing is making that impossible. I have to assume that most of the information is deeply biased because it comes from people with on a mission to promote Sri Sri Anandamurti's semidivine truths. The bad faith attacks on us are not going to help this cause. I would like to think that people inside the movements would be aware of outsider material, but either that's not so or it doesn't exist; if it does exist, then present it! Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment-Please refrain from comments contrary to the basic rules of WP confusing the editings with the personal beliefs of the editors. I never spoke of your personal beliefs: the fact that you contribute to edit so many articles related to Christianity does not make you a "Christian fundamentalist" but simply an editor interested in editing those articles. The sandbox that you create is clearly a sort of "deleting agenda", it's strictly followed by this group of users. If some of them are sockpuppets I don't know. But the suspicion is strong.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mangoe, the allegation of bad faith strikes me as preposterous. Quite to the contrary, the bad faith attacks have been in the direction of those who vote against you. After all, we are having this discussion on a page alleging misconduct against an editor who to you seems suspicious. And while the allegations made have been found to be unrelated and inconclusive, the suspicion remains (!) and was used to taint the AfD's at Yoga Psychology, and Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies. Look this page User_talk:Bobrayner which exposes bad faith on the part of Bob Raynor and Garamond Lethe, and the fact that you are now here also to sling mud calls into question your own integrity. --DezDeMonaaa (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As Rich  states below:  "CU probably needed in order to tell whether these new accounts are socks or canvassed / meatpuppets."  The CU check has (probably) eliminated the possibility of sock puppets.  Given the evidence, I expect the closing admin will treat the new accounts as "meat puppets".  See WP:MEAT for details.  I understand that this is all very new to you.  You've been very badly served by whomever asked you to get involved.  That person ought to have known better, but it's your account that is at risk of getting blocked.  See Sockpuppet investigations/09beemali/Archive for a similar case involving meat puppets at AfD.  Garamond Lethe t c  05:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Again you are editing in a section where you are expected to remain silent?--DezDeMonaaa (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe you're the only one who has that expectation. Garamond Lethe t c  06:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong complaints (continued): I created the last two tables above to show the persecution of this group of editors against all the articles related with the indian phylosopher Shrii Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar. As everyone can see from the summary table they proposed 16 AfDs all directed against the same topic. All the group has always voted in a compact style only "Delete" or at least "Redirect" (rarely). Not only that, some of them often held an inappropriate behavior sometimes even insulting. Let's start with a few examples of the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe/user:bobrayner/User:CorrectKnowledge:
 * Examples of disruptive deletions
 * After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted almost the entire article who had recently passed the AfD, as you can see from the revision history here. I reverted it but after a while the user:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition.
 * After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted part of the article, and in particular of the incipit, where there were valuable informations that allowed article to overcome the AfD as you can see from the revision history here.


 * Examples of disruptive deletions + insulting
 * On this talk page of this Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's template, user:bobrayner removed the picture of the indian philosopher, calling it "Sarkarspam". The user user:Titodutta asked bobrayner not to do that, and still bobrayner did it again. As you can see from the revision history here.


 * Insertion of inaccurately sourced material on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's articles
 * User:bobrayner added inaccurately sourced material to the Ananda Marga article. And later that inaccurately sourced material was compounded User:CorrectKnowledge as you can see from the revision history here.


 * Examples of insulting comments on AfDs' talks
 * This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: 'As with other articles in the Sarkarverse, we have the obligatory keep !votes by Abhidevananda and a sockpuppet'.
 * This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: 'on the there's still a stalwart editor and a sockpuppet diligently voting "keep"'

I could go on and on but I will stop to make a courtesy to the readers. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with the current SPI? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but why are you commenting only against Cornelius when Garamond Lethe has done precisely the same? That is, both have posted new information that is not relevant to an SPI. Oh sorry, I forgot. You are also from the fringe theories noticeboard! --DezDeMonaaa (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment to clerk: I know it is a difficult task, but, could you/someone check this on behavioural pattern/evidence (eg. wording, style of presenting argument, grammatical mistakes, overuse of particular idioms, phrasal verbs, any particular Wiki policy etc?) After reading few posts of the mentioned new editors at AFD etc, I immediately felt that I had read posts with very similar writing pattern/style somewhere already. I tried to remember, but could not! --Tito Dutta (contact) 01:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have noticed the same, but establishing the pattern will require some work. If any other editor/clerk wants to do it please go ahead, I have my hands full right now. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  01:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way, but I can't pinpoint it. NativeForeigner Talk 02:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * From the editor interaction analysis presented below in the clerk's comments section, Universal Life can be removed. He might be the master (if so, a new report should be made at a new page), but, he is clearly not a sock of anyone, he is an admin of another language Wikipedia and editing since 2008! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - CU probably needed in order to tell whether these new accounts are socks or canvassed / meatpuppets. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Knight of Infinity is using the same UA on a different proxy than Soroboro. Both proxies behind those users, and that makes both users to the rest of the accounts listed here. Other than that, as far as I can tell everything else is ❌. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First thoughts: KoI and Soroboro have similar-ish userpages, and both have contributed to military AFDs as well. Haven't taken as close of a look as I want to though. --Rschen7754 23:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * - Re-endorsing for checkuser on Knight of Infinity and Soroboro. They have both returned to editing AFDs even after their proxies have been blocked. I'm hoping a new CU might shed more light on the situation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the users is editing from a range that is blocked, but not hardblocked (hardblocking it would cause a tremendous amount of collateral damage). The other is editing from what appears to be either a VPN or a public wifi service similar to Waypoint. Either way, blocking the IP ranges isn't likely to be effective, and would cause some collateral damage. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  03:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This might be somewhat useful. There are some trends in terms of what users tend to edit the same pages but I'm not sure any of it is statistically significant. NativeForeigner Talk 21:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * After conference with other SPI clerks we decided to close. NativeForeigner Talk 04:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * After conferencing with several other SPI clerks, we came to the conclusion that while there is a lot of suspicious and incriminating activity (ie DezDeMonaaa joining and immediately posting on an AfD citing AGF) we cannot determine what is linked to what. It could be off-wiki coordination, meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, a combination of these, or something else entirely. Me and ReaperEternal noticed a connection between Soroboro and Knight, but it was not concrete enough to act on. Also, the CU evidence indicated that there was some sort of effort to avoid scrutiny. This case is full of suspicious and fishy behavior, but we were not able to determine what was connected to what. In reading through these arguments there may be other grounds for sanctions or blocks, but that would need to occur at another venue. (ANI, or something along those lines) NativeForeigner Talk 04:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)